Lahoud v Lahoud

The appeal concerned an order for the payment of interest made by the primary judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellants sought to argue that a subsequent order made by the same judge had effectively varied or set aside the earlier interest order, thereby removing their entitlement to interest that had already accrued.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had the power to vary or set aside the earlier order for the payment of interest, particularly after it had been made and the appellants' entitlement to interest had accrued. This involved considering the court's inherent jurisdiction and the relevant Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 concerning the amendment, variation, and setting aside of judgments and orders. The court also considered whether the primary judge's evaluation of the facts attended by error.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge's subsequent order did not have the effect of varying or setting aside the earlier order for the payment of interest. The court reasoned that once an order for interest had been made and the entitlement had accrued, it represented a vested right that could not be unilaterally removed by a subsequent order, absent specific grounds for setting aside or varying the original order under the rules or the court's inherent jurisdiction. The court found no error in the primary judge's evaluation of the facts.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.